Wednesday, January 1, 2014

New Year Begins With Liberal "Civil Discourse" As Expected

2014 began with about as much "civil discourse" from liberals as one might expect... Exactly none.

Case in point, Maryland US House candidate Daniel Bongino - a retired US Secret Service agent, who served on the Personal Protection Details of both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama - was attempting to have a conversation about Obamacare with Twitter user Jack Mack (Twitter handle @JackTheCat11) when he received this very "civil" response:

There was more to the exchange, as you can see here. This liberal didn't, and probably still doesn't think that he crossed a line with his attack, but many others on Twitter did.

As Obamacare and other progressive, redistributive schemes continue to crumble this year, it's probably safe to assume that desperate liberals will only intensify their hateful rhetoric.

This is both bad and good. It's bad, because it's sad that this is the only way that supposedly intelligent people that claim they're the enlightened ones can communicate in civil society. But it's good, in that it exposes their hypocrisy and their desperation as their ideology is proven - once again - to be an abject failure. 

Sunday, February 24, 2013


My latest posting for Big Hollywood at

Battlestar Galactica: Blood & Chrome chronicles the first mission of a young Ensign Bill Adama, his co-pilot “Coker” and their enigmatic civilian passenger Dr. Becca Kelly as they embark on what is supposed to be a “milk run” that turns into a clandestine mission that will allegedly bring the 10-year war between the 12 Colonies and the Cylons to an end.
If you’re a fan of the updated Battlestar Galactica (2004-2009) series that featured Edward James Olmos (Admiral Adama), Katee Sackoff (Lt. Kara “Starbuck” Thrace) and Jamie Bamber (Captain Lee “Apollo” Adama), then this is a must-see movie for you.
Read the rest of this posting at: Big Hollywood

Sunday, October 7, 2012

'The Hope And The Change' A Game Changer

The new Citizens United documentary ‘The Hope and the Change’ employed former Carter pollster Pat Caddell to make sure that filmmaker Stephen K. Bannon was talking to Democrats and Independents who had voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and could ask them questions in terms that would reach them. Producer Dave Bossie also wanted Caddell to ensure that the questions posed to these Democrats and Independents that voted for Barack Obama in 2008 were asked in a way that didn’t speak to conservatives, didn’t speak to Republicans, but instead, that was trying to get to the heart of why they voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and what the turning points were that made them lose the hope that Barack Obama would deliver on the change he had promised.

The goal of the film was to give those Democratic and Independent voters that may now have “buyers remorse” permission to not vote for Obama again. To let them know it’s okay, you’re not alone, you’re not the only one that feels this way. You’re not a racist if you don’t vote for Barack Obama for a second term. You don’t even have to vote for Mitt Romney, it’s okay to just stay home.

While the 40 people highlighted in this movie are initially “euphoric” about electing the first black president and describe Obama with words like: “savior”, “charismatic”, “wondrous”, “a glow about him” and “idealic”, soon after he is elected and things like the auto bailout and the $787 billion “stimulus” are unveiled and the new president is presented with the Nobel Peace Prize, for achieving nothing, they immediately start to question their decision to vote for him, while still giving him the benefit of the doubt.

One of the most powerful sections in the movie is when these average, hardworking Americans express their profound anger at President Obama for taking so many lavish vacations to places like Aspen, Martha’s Vineyard and Hawaii – all on the taxpayer’s dime – when they haven’t had a vacation themselves in 6 years and are trying to figure out how they’re going to put gas in their car so they can get to work, if they’re fortunate enough to have a job, so they can pay their rent and put food on the table for their families. This is all crystallized when one woman says she doesn’t ever want to hear “that godforsaken slogan Hope and Change” ever again.

These folks are not conservatives, they’re not Republicans, they’re not Tea Party people. But what they are is fiscal conservatives, whether they know it or not, because they do understand that while they have to live within their means and can’t print money, the government is not living within it’s means and that out of control deficit spending is hurting them now and will cripple their children’s futures.

For conservatives viewing ‘The Hope and the Change’ it will be an eye-opening look into why so many people fell for what Barack Obama was selling in 2008. For “Reagan” Democrats and Independents suffering from buyers remorse, it will be the permission slip they’ve been seeking to make it okay to vote against Obama, or just stay home on November 6th. Either way, it’s a must see.

To hear my exclusive interview with Stephen K. Bannon click here.

Sunday, September 2, 2012

US Troops in Afghanistan Suffering Atrocious Casualties Due to Politics

Saturday on 'Fox and Friends Weekend' Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX) revealed that 70% of US forces killed and 84% of US forces wounded in Afghanistan have been under President Obama's watch as Commander-in-Chief.

During President Bush's time in office 625 American troops were killed, compared with 1474 under President Obama. 2638 American troops were wounded during President Bush's tenure, while under President Obama a staggering 141,817 have been wounded.

What makes these statistics all the more alarming is the fact that Obama's dead and wounded have occurred in less than 4 years, while those under President Bush occurred in 7 years.

The reason for these horrifying statistics? Put simply, under President Obama the rules of engagement for US forces have been designed to protect Afghan civilians - and the president's political ass - rather than American soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines.

When US troops come under fire they are not permitted to shoot back if civilians are in the line of fire. The rules for calling in air support are even more restrictive, requiring approval from up the chain of command.

In addition, the President's decision to announce a date certain for withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan have emboldened the Taliban and made our Afghan "allies" skittish. As a former military officer recently said, "We have the watch, but the Taliban has the time". The Afghans know that once the US leaves their country, the weak and corrupt government in Kabul will fall and those that are seen as collaborating with US and NATO troops will be slaughtered. This has led to increasing "Blue on Green" attacks by Afghans being trained to become police.

The so-called "mainstream" media and anti-war protesters who were so ready to point out every error of the Bush Administration in both Iraq and Afghanistan, are completely silent on these fact under the Obama administration.

Under current circumstances it seems clear that US casualties will only increase. Either the rules of engagement need be changed and our withdrawal date scrapped, or our forces need to be withdrawn immediately to prevent more needless bloodshed.

If our goal is to build a stable, democratic Afghanistan then we've already failed. If our goal is to prevent Al-Qaeda from utilizing Afghanistan as a training and staging area we can accomplish that with our Special Forces, intelligence assets and air power. There is no reason to have large numbers of US boots on the ground to be targets for Al-Qaeda terrorists, Taliban insurgents and Afghan infiltrators.

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Contraception, Abortion and the "War on Women"

Those of you who know me, have read my blog or listened to me speak on CRF Radio, know that I'm a fiscal and constitutional conservative, but that I'm more of a moderate on the social issues. So it should come as no surprise that I've never written about prophylactic-contraception or abortion.

Frankly, until President Obama made it an issue by putting a mandate in the "Affordable Care Act" (aka Obamacare) that requires hospitals and schools run by religious institutions - as well as private companies run by people of faith - to provide coverage for contraception and the "morning after" pill in their healthcare coverage, it wasn't something I felt a need to address in any great detail.

I believe that Roe v. Wade was decided incorrectly because it's a Tenth Amendment, State's rights issue. The Supreme Court should have ruled to let each state make their own laws and then Congress should have passed a law protecting a woman that goes to a state that permits abortion from being prosecuted when/if she returned to her home state. If you don't like the laws in your state, you're free to move to another state. As the census showed us, in the last 10 years millions of Americans have left states like New York and California and moved to states like Texas and Florida. So evidently, whatever their reasons, people do and have voted with their feet.

I want to try to examine both contraception and abortion  in terms of the so-called "moral high ground", which somehow Democrats seem to have seized (at least in the media).

I should note that I have no objection to people using contraception. That is a personal choice. And frankly it's also the personal responsibility of both the man and the woman if they choose to have sex and don't want to have a child. What I do have a problem with is people expecting taxpayers and people of faith that disagree to pay for what happens in their bedrooms.

I also should make it clear where I personally stand on abortion. I neither want to outlaw all abortions, nor do I think it should be legal to terminate a pregnancy once the fetus is viable outside the womb. Both positions are extreme to me.

Once the baby can survive outside the mother it is, in my opinion, no longer simply a matter of the woman's choice. There is clearly another person who has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness involved at that point. And six months is more than enough time to decide to have an abortion if you truly don't want to have a baby.

Hopefully having clarified my own positions, I want to address the way that progressives like Barack Obama, Sandra Fluke and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz talk about these issues and the "moral high ground" they claim to stand on.

Whether it's contraception or abortion, progressives claim that the issue is a "woman's access to healthcare". This is an intentionally false and deceptive argument.

After all, what disease does contraception cure? Being fertile is the natural condition for most women. In fact, according to the CDC, approximately 200,000 women a year utilize fertility drugs because they can't get pregnant, even though they would like to conceive.

Again in the case of abortion, becoming pregnant is natural -- it is the means by which we procreate and perpetuate our species. So to claim it's simply a women's health issue is disingenuous at best.

So why do progressives frame the debate this way? Simple. If they said they wanted to give women the right to kill their unborn child they'd sound like monsters. It's much easier to demonize people of faith and good conscience than to try to debate civilly about an issue that so divides people.

More recently progressives have doubled-down on their arguments claiming that Republicans are waging a "war on women" due to their moral objection to abortion.

When Barack Obama said he didn't want his daughters to "be punished with a baby" I believe the left lost any claim to the moral high ground on the issue of abortion.

I will say that if the circumstance is either rape or incest I can completely understand why a woman might not want carry a baby to term. I don't want the government telling a woman that's been the victim of either of these violent assaults what they have to do about a pregnancy that results from it. It's a personal decision that the woman must make.

At the same time it's also disturbing to see a "pro-choice" ad featuring a mother essentially saying that she wants her daughter to have the "right" to terminate her unborn grandchild. Again, unless it's the result  of rape or incest, shouldn't the woman have insisted on the use of contraception if she's going to have sex?

It is also despicable when women that do choose life for their child, i.e. Sarah Palin or Tim Tebow's mother, Pamela, are attacked and ridiculed for that decision. I would think that the maternal instinct would be to choose life, not abortion. I know, what a concept!

Another disturbing thing is that most who describe themselves as pro-choice and support Planned Parenthood are completely ignorant of the origins of this organization and it's founder Margaret Sanger. Sanger was a eugenicist and a racist. She felt that people of color were "unfit" and that the "procreation of this group should be stopped".

No wonder so many Planned Parenthood clinics are located in African-American neighborhoods. It's really pretty shocking that some of the biggest defenders of Planned Parenthood are black politicians. Of course this is one of the reasons that the left has so dominated our public education system and curtailed the history that our children are taught. An ignorant population can be led to the slaughter much more easily than an informed one. But I digress.

One other thing that rarely gets talked about when discussing abortion is the man. What about the rights of the man in all of this? As things currently stand the woman gets to decide whether or not to keep the baby. The man has absolutely no say in most cases. However, if the woman decides to have the child the man is usually expected and often required to foot all or some of the costs of raising that child. So much for the "war on women".

The issues of prophylactic-contraception and abortion are not going to be solved here, or likely anytime soon in our political debates. But it would be nice if the debate were on the actual issues involved, rather than on disingenuous attacks on people of faith and good conscience.

Saturday, July 7, 2012

A Sad Day For Conservatives

Congressman Thaddeus McCotter (R-Livonia, MI) retired this week from his post in the United States House of Representatives. It is a sad day for the conservative movement and conservatives, whether they know it or not.

Many of us first became aware of Thad McCotter from his appearances on Fox News' Red Eye w/Greg Gutfeld. This obscure congressman's dry sense of humor and keen intellect were on full display at 3am ET and we loved it and him.

But beyond his humor - which I've described as "The Bob Newhart of the House" - Rep. McCotter is also a talented musician and a great conservative statesman.

I've had the pleasure of interviewing the congressman several times on CRFRadio, and even had the occasion to wake him up as he dozed in a chair between sessions at the David Horowitz Restoration Weekend, in a hallway at the Breakers resort on Palm Beach Island. He always answered our questions directly and fully. And even when our questions sometimes challenged his positions, he remained a gentleman.

A great song by The Army You Have they wrote for McCotter's presidential campaign.

I believe his foray into the GOP Presidential Primaries was his undoing (as it may end up being for Michele Bachmann). He spent time and money in an ill-conceived bid for President of the United States and took his eye off his newly redrawn congressional district and his campaign. Ultimately he was undone by allegedly fraudulent signatures on his petitions. The Michigan Attorney General is investigating.

In any case, the United States House of Representatives and the conservative movement are diminished by the resignation of Congressman Thaddeus McCotter. He will be missed.